guest: yes, especially for diseases like respiratory virus and influenza. studies show when you vaccinate children against influenza, that also affects an adult, including older adult population. that is why this whole medical freedom movement which i will make a decision for myself and to hell with the hell with everyone else. these are contagious disease and is so you are making decisions for other people. host: dr. paul of children's hospital act -- philadelphia and the former member of the fda vaccines and related biological products advisory committee. thank you for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: that is all for the program but another edition comes to you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. stay tuned. ceasefire is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2026] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

dasha: welcome to "ceasefire," where we seek to bridge the divide in american politics. i'm a dasha burns, politico white house bureau chief. joining make about two guests who have agreed to keep the conversation civil even when they disagree. kate bedingfield come former white house munication's director during the biden administration, and a scott jennings, former special assistant to president george w. bush. he is also the author of a new book, "a revolution of common sense." thank you both for joining me. we have two experts on the white house at a time when of course that is all anyone is talking about here in washington and beyond. i want to have you both peel back the curtain for me a little bit about what it is like, especially in a white house that is taking so much action all over the world, in those moments

when you both had to be at the center of global events in a serious way like this. what are some things people might not know about how things work, what the relationships are like that the public really doesn't get to see? scott? scott: first of all, thanks for having me. kate, good to see you. you are my favorites, so i will have no trouble having a civil conversation with you to today. the white house is an interesting place, as kate knows, because there's people you know about and there are front and center people, the president, chief of staff, some of the political advisers you see all the time, but then there's a lot of people behind-the-scenes. it is, after all, a military base. you have military people, security people, and all other folks dealing with global affairs issues. they are not on tv all the time dealing with the political hot topics but they are behind-the-scenes communicating with the state department and pentagon, communicating with foreign governments, and

advising the president and giving the president and his advisers information about things unfolding around the world. it is a beehive of activity, but a lot of it is done by people you may never hear their name, but they have vital positions in our government and they are involved in the information exchange going on between our commander-in-chief and other countries like what we see going on in venezuela right now, what we see happening in the middle east, the negotiations with russia and ukraine. there's a lot of folks with a lot of experience in there who are doing good work for the american people, and a lot of times it is under anonymity. dasha: kate, you were a vital person but your name was not one that -- was one that was known. you were very forward facing. what surprised you about your job? kate: one of the things that is most challenging about sitting in that seat and having a forward facing role, a public racing role, it piggybacks off what scott was saying, there is so much information moving so quickly and so many people who own different pieces of expertise, who are responsible for carrying certain pieces of the puzzle to the president and

the senior team. if at least part of your job, as was in my case, if part of your job is to be forward facing, to bring information to the public, staying on top of how quickly all that information is moving is incredibly challenging. and it requires building trust, trusting relationships with a lot of people across the board. and i think that is one of the pieces of working at the white house that may be the public doesn't always get to see, is the intensity and the degree to which people rely on each other. because you do truly feel like, especially when you -- when things are going poorly and media coverage is critical, you do truly feel that you are under siege, under assault. certainly your life is not in jeopardy the way our militarie'' lives are put in jeopardy, but you are working closely with a lot of people you have to trust in you build those trusting relationships. that is really part of how it all functions. dasha: the folks i know who have

worked in the white house, there is the version of you before the white house and the version of you after the white house. kate: very much so. dasha: i am curious how you both changed after your time in that legendary building. scott? scott: for me, honestly, seeing up close the volume of information that a president has to take in on a daily basis. when i worked for president bush, i was in the oval office frequently and i was in there for very specific reasons, but when you are in there and you see the people who are going over the next people who are coming in, just the dailies of information they are processing on a range of topics on a daily basis, it is an extra nearly active job. i have been in the oval office some with donald trump as i wrote my book this past year, and i personally witnessed this with trump as well. he often has a good chunk of the cabinet, his advisers streaming in and out of the oval office

throughout the day. the oval office for trump come right behind the resolute desk, that is the nerve center of our government. when you are part of that, part of those conversations and you witness one person that the american people have entrusted with this awesome power in this awesome response ability, you understand the stress and the anxiety that comes with the job. it changes not only the staff that works there, but it changes the president because the amount of information that you get, the things you know that nobody else can know, and all this stuff is floating around. and this is visions you're making on the decisions you are part of our life and death decisions. they do move markets. they make huge financial impacts around the world. for average everyday working americans alike. the enormity of the job does change you. you do feel a weight on your shoulders every day you walk into that building. when i was sworn in by andy carter, my first chief of staff, he said the minute you walk in here and you don't feel a sense of awe and also wonder,

that is the day you should resign because you should feel that sense of responsibility every single day you walk through these doors. dasha: i feel that way just walking into the briefing room, a place you are very familiar with. what was the difference between kate before the white house and kate after the white house? kate: if you ask my friends and family, they would say kate after the white house was a more psychotic version of kate pre-white house. first of all, your base line for at an adrenaline spike goes way up. you start working in the white house taking in all this information, as scott noted, taking in information you often cannot share except with a very limited number of people you're working with and you're trying to work through what is the right next step, what will be the consequent as if we make this decision, you're working through these incredibly hefty decisions which sometimes to have life and death consequences . over time as you're working there, i've found that my baseline for an adrenaline spike

went up and up and up. i was able to tolerate more and more intense situations because you find yourself having to navigate them. i would say kate after the white house, when i left -- so, i love the biden white house in march of 2023. i would say it took the entirety of 2023 into the spring of 2024 to come back down and feel like myself again. when you walk out that building and you don't have your secure devices anymore, you feel like -- it is like phantom limb syndrome. your light, where is my phone? what is my -- you are like, where is my phone? what is happening? the loss of responsibility of having to deal with that information flow can also be very welcome when you walk out that building. dasha: and your fight or flight is up here. the white house right now is dealing with a lot of adrenaline given all the different issues at hand. i want to talk about the prominent topic of washington

and the world, which is venezuela. as everyone at this point probably knows that president nicolas maduro was seized after months of tensions with the trump administration. he and his wife have pled not guilty to narco terrorism, cocaine and partition, and weapons charges. you both worked in the white house. you have seen these sorts of moments play out. how hard to my first of all, is it to keep something like this under wraps? kate: extremely challenging, although i will say it is a testament to the military personnel, the intelligence community, the white house staff, the career staff and political staff who are involved with all of the planning. i can speak to -- actually, just before i left the white house, biden made his covert trip to ukraine for the anniversary of the invasion, and very few people knew he was going to make that trip. all of the necessary logistics and planning that go into any time a president moves, let

even giving getting to a military operation -- let alone even getting to a military operation, the logistics echoes into that is massive. but when you're doing that in a covert way, many of the people who would be involved in helping you plan aren't. and those resources are not there. for the team who was working on it, it becomes trying to execute on something without a lot of the resources you would otherwise have. it is challenging to keep it a secret, but it is a testament to the people who are involved that these things remain secret. obviously, we will see what the eventual political fallout looks like, both domestically and in venezuela, but certainly the execution of that mission, incredibly impressive. dasha: scott, there's been debates about the actual execution of the mission, but much more so about the aftermath here. and i am curious to get your take on the messaging from the administration.

one big question a lot of people are asking me, even lawmakers and staff, is what is going on? who is actually running the country? the president has been saying one thing. some of his officials have been saying something else. i want you to take a listen to president trump then u.n. ambassador tim walz. >> we are dealing with the people who just got sworn in. don't ask me who's in charge because i will give you an answer and it will be very controversial. >> what does that mean? >> we are in charge. >> there is no war against venezuela or its people. we are not occupying a country. this was a law enforcement operation. dasha: that was mike waltz, of course. we will talk about tim walz in a bit. they's on your time working in the white house, how feasible is

an arrangement -- based on your time working in the white house, how feasible an arrangement is this? scott: i think this is how the president speaks. he often puts things into very rhetorical terms. what i have heard from other administration officials is we have a fair amount of leverage over venezuela right now. we took out maduro in the law enforcement operation and we've left the rest of the government in place, including the vice president, who's been sworn in as the acting president, and effectively what the president has said is she is going to have to listen to us or face consequences even worse than maduro. does that mean we have american bureaucrats running around office buildings running their government? no, but it means we have a massive amount of influence over venezuela right now. we have leverage over them because of the oil situation. obviously, marco rubio and the national security team i would assume are in daily contact with

the remaining venezuelan government to ensure they are doing the things with us that we want them to do. and if they get off the rails, they have seen what we can do to maduro. when i hear the president say we are running venezuela, what i hear him saying is we are improving venezuela. we are encouraging venezuela to be an improving commodity in the western hemisphere. i ultimately believe they are going to have to have elections in venezuela at some point and give the venezuelan people a chance to elect a government that is not a legitimate, because we never asked not a legitimate, because we never -- not illegitimate, because we never recognize maduro. dasha: should the president give a timeline on that? i asked at a press briefing this week if there was a timeline for elections, if the president would come into making that happen in the next 12 months or so, and she said there is no timeline. of course, the president has said it is too soon. should they give a more specific clear plan for that?

scott: i don't think so. i wouldn't put a date on it because you don't know how the venezuelans are going to act. these people we left in charge, they may turn out to disappoint us or do things we don't want them to do that could lead to an evolving situation, or they may do what we want them to do. i think we are still in the early stages. i don't think we trust these people. some people say the vice president is worse than maduro when it comes to the drug cartels and stuff, and the ruthlessness. i think it is too soon to tell how it is going to shake out. as long as we say we have a commitment to elections in the future when venezuela is capable of handling it, and frankly when they are aligned with american interests, that is good enough for me. i think it will be good enough for the american people. if this goes on 3, 4, 5 years, then we will have a problem. but we are just a few days since we did the operation, so a timeline now would be premature. dasha: where are democrats on this and how should they approach the messaging? there is a headline from punch

bowl that says democrats splinter on how to confront trump over venezuela. they have been critical of maduro but also this operation. some think they should not be so critical. how do they walk this line? kate: i think the most effective argument for democrats to be making on this is arguing that trump has taken his eye off the ball on bringing prices down for people at home and he has taken his eye off the economy domestically. for most americans, debates about whether or not we should have gone into venezuela are not about these competing factions in terms of foreign policy worldview. most americans are not thinking i am an anti-interventionist, i am a neoconservative. most people are not thinking about these things in the same terms that are being discussed in washington. not to interrupt you, but i think for democrats there's a lot of important lines of questioning here, including the legality of whether the president's actions were constitutional or not. i think it is important to

pursue that line of questioning. but as a political matter, i think the most effective place for democrats to be is driving this sense that we frankly show in all public polling that people feel that trump is too focused on foreign affairs, is too focused on his own enrichment of himself and his family, and isn't really thinking about the economy and isn't delivering on the kinds of promises he made on the campaign trail. that to me feels like the most effective political argument for democrats. dasha: that is a really clean message you gave just now. do you think democratic leaders are connecting those dots well enough? kate: i think some are. when i think of the panoply of statements we have seen over the past week, pete buttigieg gave a really effective argument on this, i think there have been others who have. it is a big significant foreign policy muscle movement, and understandably people have their own individual lines of criticism. but i think for those who are

driving the political message for the democrats, that is where they should be. i think some are doing it effectively. i suspect as time goes on and questions begin to emerge about what our role is in running or as scott said improving venezuela may be, i suspect there may be ample opportunity for democrats to further that message, and i think that is where the focus should be. dasha: to kate's point, i was told by white house officials all through last year that 2026 will be all about a fort ability, cost of living, the economy, he will be -- affordability, cost of living, the economy. now we are talking about venezuela, we are talking about cuba, colombia, mexico, greenland. it is the president taking a political risk here? scott: of course. the decision to go into venezuela at all was a massive risk. it took some rail -- some real cajones, since we are

talking about latin america, to make that decision. if an american soldier had died in this operation, if one of our law enforcement personnel had died or been seriously injured, think about the risk donald trump took here. it took a lot of guts to do it. but we had to do it. the guys under federal indictment. we don't recognize him as a legitimate ruler of venezuela. they are doing stuff with oil we don't approve of. they are in league with iran, cuba, russia. these are not our friends. because you have domestic priorities, which the president does, doesn't mean you can take your eye off the ball when it comes to energy, national security, and how those things -- dasha: sure, but it is not like it was a one and done operation. i know a lot of republicans have been focused on exactly what happened and the execution of it, which was really impressive, but we are not done. we just talked about running or improving the country, whatever that means. this is going to continue to be a focus for the administration. the president told the new york times this is probably going to

be a years long project for the u.s., and we are also trying to solve wars between russia and ukraine, and we are involved in gaza and the middle east. do you worry that with the midterms coming up there is too much of a focus from the administration on foreign policy and they are not hammering the drum enough on domestic issues? scott: we are just a few days into january of 2026. they've got all year. dasha: and all we have talked about is venezuela. [laughter] scott: do i worry about the administration standing up to china, russia, iran, and cuba, who are mucking around in my backyard -- in our backyard? no. the hypocrisy on this has been pretty stark. it was just last year that the biden administration put a 25 million dollar bounty on maduro, now you have democrats out criticizing president trump for arresting this guy who previously the democratic administration correctly recognized as a dictator who needed to be brought to justice. i actually think to democrats i saw put out correct statements,

john fetterman and josh gottheimer. i thought they both had it just right. i think the other democrats struggle with if donald trump is for it, i have to be against it. but sometimes things donald trump's four is ok. what i think we are doing in venezuela is good. that doesn't mean donald trump can ignore domestic affairs. your question about domestic politics and how these things will play into midterms, what i think he has to do is get with congress and start talking with them about something i picked up on capitol hill this week, and it is how are we going to pass bills? what i picked up from speaker johnson is i sensed they are about to start budget reconciliation 2.0, the process that delivered the big beautiful bill last summer. have a feeling they're headed in that direction. he needs to pay attention to that as well and being sure he gets the credit when the house and senate republicans start passing legislation. dasha: should we invade greenland this year or what? scott: no, we shouldn't invade

it, we should buy it. this is obvious. we should make a deal with denmark and buy it. by the way, this is not a crazy idea. you know who else wanted to do it? william seward in the link administration. harry s truman. they have recognize that we should have greenland. denmark doesn't even do a good job with it anyway. let's make a deal, let's get greenland, it is good for america, it is good for national security, it will be good for the world, and i think trump has an inspired idea on this, and i hope he can make a deal. but we are not going to invade greenland. but buying it is a great idea. dasha: i want you to listen to karoline leavitt on this issue this week. why not rule out taking it by military force? >> i know that past presidents and past leaders have often rolled things out. they have often been very open about ruling things in and basically broadcasting their

foreign policy strategy to the rest of the world, not just our allies, but most egregiously to our adversaries. that is not something this president does. all options are always on the table for president trump as he examines what is in the best interest of the united states. i will just say, the president's first option always has been diplomacy. dasha: kate, what is going on here? kate: in the spirit of "ceasefire," i am going to throw scott jennings a bone and say i agree with what he said that presidents cannot ignore foreign policy. they cannot stop engaging in foreign policy. dasha: you to really understand the assignment. scott: thank you, kate. dasha: you're welcome, scott. the horrible secret is that we actually respect each other quite a bit. [laughter] dasha: that is the premise of this show. scott: i am exposed. kate: sorry, scott. don't tell your twitter followers. but here is the thing. to me, all of the theatrics

around greenland, this is an example of a poor political decision on trump's part. it is incredibly unpopular. the idea of invading greenland incredibly unpopular. it is like 75% of americans don't think we should do that. even the idea of buying it, the danes have said it is not for sale, greenland have said they are not for sale, also unpopular. this is a public relations fight that trump is picking that has opportunity cost for him. he could be using this time to talk about the economy, to talk about prices, to talk about affordability. but he is choosing to have this bombastic back and forth about greenland. it admittedly gets headlines, it gets clicks, but does it serve his best interests in the end? i think it doesn't. this is an example of throw everything outrageous to the wall strategy that is not smart. i think democrats have a huge opportunity here to really try to nail him to the wall on this. we don't have too much time

left, and i want to talk about some domestic stuff. scott, you talked about the president needing to work with congress to pass some stuff. this week, he told republicans he wants them to own the issue of health care. listen. >> now you take the health care issue away from them and they want to fight it. you know why? they are all owned by the insurance companies, and they cannot fight it successfully. there's nothing they can do. let the money go in a health care account or however you do it. let the money go directly to the people. you have to be a little flexible / you have to work something. you have to use ingenuity. you've got to work. dasha: can republicans actually do what the president is asking for here? is it possible? scott: the house republicans

passed a bill right from for christmas that the cbo said would lower insurance premiums by 11%, so some legislation has been moving. there have been other conversations going on in the house and senate about what to do with these obamacare premium subsidy issues. as i mentioned earlier, i think they will pursue budget reconciliation. as i understand it, health care will be one of the pillars they put in along with housing affordability and more energy stuff. i do think trump's impulse on this is correct. we are the majority party, so throwing out ideas and legislation to fix things is a good idea. but look at the map here. the house majority is down to one seat, and you have a small under 60 majority of course in the senate, so keeping the team corralled is vital. if anyone can do it, it is donald trump. there's a lot of ideas in play. i don't think there is a silver bullet idea that will fix all health care issues. there are six or seven small ideas that you could reasonably present to the american people.

obamacare failed and here are all the things we came along to do to fix it. there are conversations happening, but i think the president's impulse to do something and make the insurance companies the bad guys and say democrats are in the pockets is a good thing. dasha: you talked about the banning of federal funding for abortions. how much will that be a sticking point for republicans? did he step into sticky territory? scott: president trump is recognized by republicans as an extraordinary important pro-life leader. he has made policy decisions and judicial appointments that everyone appreciates. he's got a lot of credibility and a lot of capital on pro-life issues. it will be an issue for some pro-life republicans in congress, a lot of pro-life republicans. how they operationalize or react to what he had to say, i am waiting to see. i've heard some rumblings in the grassroots that that is not going to be something they are going to want to do and be flexible on that. again, there's a lot of things

at play and a lot of ideas in the water. i don't think the republican party frankly should turn away from its pro-life bona fides. at the same time, i think the president was trying to say to them, be as creative as you can to get to a solution. if there's one thing i learned writing the book, trump is an outcomes-based guy. he is willing to be flexible and color outside the lines of what you would consider normal ideological bounds to get there. that is one of his leadership strengths. i think it was encouraging republicans to not be hemmed in. the pro-life issues are important to a lot of members of congress, there is no question about that. dasha: when you hear scott and the president talk about republicans owning health care, is that something that worries democrats or are democrats chomping at the bit? kate: i think democrats would be thrilled to have health care be front and center through the course of this campaign year. congressional democrats have gotten a lot of flak for essentially their somewhat argue

lack of leadership in cohesion across 2025. i think they do need to be given credit for forcing through the shutdown mechanism, forcing this debate about health care subsidies to the fore. secondly, hakeem jeffries deserves credit for forcing the discharge petition for keeping democrats together and getting to a place where we are now looking at democrats having put forth a bill, a clean bill to extend these subsidies and help keep health care costs down for people, and republicans particularly in purple districts are in a tough spot because they vote against it and that will be in a television ad for the duration of 2026. i think democrats should get some credit for driving this issue from a political standpoint to the fore. i think of democrats are looking at donald trump saying, we have to try to own health care, that is a good day for democrats and that is a win because that is ground they want to be fighting on. dasha: does anything kate just

said make you nervous at all? scott: not really, because i think the republican retort is, the health care regime in the united states is called obamacare. obamacare it was a democrat -- obama was a democrat president. the subsidies put in by democrats. now you want to blame republicans for a problem that was fully of democrats making. we will try to solve these problems but let's have a rational, reasonable, and honest conversation about the american health care system. we live under obamacare. for democrats to be running around saying this is all the republicans fault, i don't think voters are going to buy that. i think what they are looking for our solutions. i think that is let's show the american people that even if we have a failed system, there's reasonable adults in washington that care about resolution. kate: that's a tough argument when obama has not been president for 10 years and

donald trump the pot -- president now. trying to lay an argument at the foot of the president who hasn't been in office for a decade is not going to feel relevant to most voters. scott: if i were you, i would want to forget about the obama years as well. we are not going to let you off the hook. dasha: all right you two. both of your theories are going to get tested pretty much in real time here. that's all the time we have. thank you both, my friends. kate bedingfield and scott jennings. thank you for doing cease-fire. scott: thank you. kate: thank you. dasha: let's turn to c-span flashback where we show you a moment in political history that relates to today. the year was 19 87. the democratic-controlled senate was considering war powers legislation in response to the

reagan administration deploying u.s. naval ships to the persian gulf to protect oil shipping. here's james exxon, a top member of the armed services committee, explaining why congress needed to act. >> should the war powers act apply to the persian gulf? >> yes, i think it should. the main reason is the fact that the war powers act is the law of the land. when we came here, all of us took an oath of office to uphold the constitution and the laws of the united states. if we do not have a role to play as the war powers act states, we are not following the oath that we took when we became part of the united states senate. it said, the president of the united states as commander-in-chief has the right to do anything that he feels

necessary to protect the vital interest of the united states of america. dasha: flash forward to this week with a similar debate in the senate over the trump administration recent actions in venezuela. the senate advanced legislation requiring congressional authorization for any future military intervention there. to break down the situation in venezuela and other big political stories of the week, we have two political pros. democratic strategist for chris coons. former independent senator joe manchin. and john elliott, former acting pentagon spokesperson during the current trump administration. thank you both so much for being here. remember, you are not surrogates here today. you are strategists giving us your expertise and peeling back the curtain on longer parties is doing what they are doing. i just played that flashback

there and you talked about what happened this week on venezuela in congress. the president is not so happy with the republican senators who voted in favor of the war powers. he put posts on true social saying, republicans should be ashamed of senators that voted with democrats. susan collins, josh hawley, todd young should never be elected to office again. this feels like some of the more aggressive language that he's used even with the moderate senators, especially with someone like holly. what is your perspective on how the president is handling this and whether this could become a real thing for republicans? >> thanks for having us on. i think this is a program that you've done really well with in terms of breaking down the user will -- usual left right. dasha: glad to hear it. >> my perspective goes back as

far as senator x and. i was in the senate when there was a lot more flexibility between parties as there is now. a lot of that is from social media. there wasn't an online presence back then. this was during the iraq war. when george w. bush had a very unpopular war that was unraveling after saddam hussein was captured and then it started to really go south over there. i was spokesman for the senate armed services committee at that time and we had people like john mccain, lindsey graham, and others that broke with president bush at the time and said, we need to hold hearings and what not. we even had susan collins, who is still in the senate now. there was a lot more flexibility back then. now that's, either party. if you break it all with your party, suddenly you are primary. back then, you had a lot more. if you were a senator, you had a

lot more power. president trump, all he needs to say is you are not going to get reelected. there's a strong disincentive for both parties. dasha: he is saying that right now. john: exactly. it's a function of the era of social media. that change takes away a lot of the independence from senators. the other thing is that president trump more than any other president probably in the last 100 years, going back to teddy roosevelt, is somebody who speaks his mind. in the age of social media, he is somebody who can really take on. that allowed the same personality to do very good things, to reposition the party into a more populous direction. that's what you get with president trump. he speaks his mind. everybody is used to that. in this era, you cross him at your peril if you are a republican. dasha: this was led by democrats but you did have republican

signing on. how surprised are you by that? how do -- what do you think this accomplishes here? >> he's not going to sign it. i'm old enough to remember the phrase, the politics and at the waters edge. that's a fossil of the old times of how we used to act. every congress, a president tries to take more power away from the legislative branch. every time congress tries to pull a little bit back, this congress has given the president every bit of power. dasha: not a lot of pull back. >> this has been the first time. i think it's interesting that he attacked susan collins. she's the only one of those that's up for reelection. him not supporting herually could have an impact. josh hawley has carved out an interesting sort of new brand for himself. democrats have jokingly called him comrade holly because he's taken such a populist position.

he's written -- very part -- strong union. you haven't seen that from republicans. i'm not surprised to see him do it. really principled independent people. lisa murkowski is the most independent senator that we have right now. i think this is the first step at congress. we may not let you do everything you want. of course, this is more of a symbolic vote. he's not going to sign it. it's not going to matter. we might be here next week discussing greenland or cuba. or panama. >> can i just jump in real quickly? i'm a big fan of your two bosses. very good senators representing their party. that's what they are there to do. they are very thoughtful. your point was a good one.

susan collins. susan collins is probably the most right-leaning republican that you could elect in maine. if you are going to save that seat which is key for the majority, you need to understand . most people who really look into the race will understand that to attack her is to cut into our majority. if you get a fire breather on the right running for her seat and she gets primary, we are guaranteed it wasn't from delaware. christina donald was way far out for that state and we lost that seat which was winnable at the time. dasha: if you see that post, what are you thinking? >> he knows that the president speaks his mind. it's a headache for him in terms of keeping the majority, no question. dasha: i want to talk about minnesota here. that was a major story this week. as you know, a nice agent shot a protester. dhs said the woman tried to run

the officer over with her car. there is video and people are taking vastly different conclusions from the same content that we are seeing online here. i want to talk about what the story says about this moment right now. take a listen to the two different narratives that we are hearing from different leadership. >> we've been warning for weeks that the trump administration is dangerous and its operations are a threat to our public safety. someone was going to get hurt. just yesterday i said exactly that. what we are seeing is the consequences designed to generate fear and conflict. it's governing by reality tv. today that recklessness cost someone their life. >> since president trump took office, governor walz has released 470 violent criminals back onto the streets here in minneapolis. he has another 680 of them still within his jurisdiction that he

could give to us today to face the consequences for their crimes. because governor walz and mayor fry refused to protect minnesotans and instead they protect these criminals, that's why we are here. dasha: where is this headed? >> we might be headed for a showdown around appropriations time. senator murphy put out a statement saying, if republicans aren't willing to put some guardrails on dhs in this next round of appropriations, bills that we punted until january 30, you could see another shut down based solely on this action. democrats have hit, this is the breaking point. they kept saying this was going to happen. i think they are going to have to act. they will have to show their constituents and their base that they are willing to do something. they can't just send out tweets, go on tv and yell about it. they have to do something.

they don't have a lot of levers of power. when you shut out of all three, you don't have any paths to stop the president other than shutting down the government. they may need to do that if republicans aren't willing to do some compromise on the dhs appropriations bill. dasha: i was talking with our guests about how health care is an issue that is a strong one for democrats. trump telling republicans that waiting and could be risky for them. immigration is an issue that's largely been beneficial to republicans. what is the risk reward for democrats to make that a fight? >> it's a tough one. the trump team has said, if we are talking about emigration, we are winning. they were talking about eating the cats and the dogs. they knew that wasn't true. they knew as long as we were talking about immigration, that

was a winner for them. this is something i think might be able to not switch it over into a democratic advantage but may neutralize the issue. when we are going into the november elections, health care is number one. immigration might be number three. in other times, that has been reversed. >> what do you think about that? >> you make some good points. one of the reasons why the immigration issue is not so much of an issue now is because trump has secured the border. there's a net negative in terms of illegal immigration because you are having people self deport. you are having other deportations. this is part of the ice operation that's targeted my only at violent criminal immigrants here. i'm very supportive of what ice is doing. the president has done a great job in chickering the border like no one else.

13 million during bidens time coming across the border illegally that we know of. the idea is that because president has been so successful , he's taken the issue off the table and people are thinking about affordability and their bottom line economically. he is somewhat of a victim of his own success. one thing i would say is that, in the age of social media, if you looked a decade ago, you would have the same video and see, they disagree completely on what the lesson is or who is at fault. it's a rorschach test. that's exactly right. in this age of polarized media, no one is going to win the twitter fight. both parties are playing to their bases.

the issue is that it's just another day that we as republicans are not talking on issues that are really going to decide the election. the immigration has taken off as a result of the success. what about the whole affordability question? president trump taken great steps to solve the affordability question but we are not talking about that because of the latest twitter scandal. dasha: the administration has been unequivocal about what side they are on. they are in total support of the ice agent. >> as i am as well. dasha: do you think there's any political risk to being so black and white on an issue where there is some concern by the people of minnesota? >> i think there is. if we take a step back, a lot of americans including myself, we default to trusting and law enforcement whenever we get away

from that it gets to a more dangerous place. i think those are terrible images of people who felt very strongly in their own view of what happened here. they were throwing snowballs and banging on the side of the vehicles that were carrying the law enforcement. dasha: do you think there's a potential that democrats could take and run with this and say, this has gone too far? get some of the moderate voters on their side here. >> i don't think so. most americans, you have the right and left outraged in different ways on this. if you do have a split, people that will decide the next midterm election are focused on kitchen table issues. they are not focused on whether there is an overreach here are there. those same independent voters are going to decide the election. dasha: minnesota has been

centerstage for a number of issues. the other one has been fraud allegations. take a listen. >> governor walz, attorney general ellison, democrats failed to act despite countless warnings. they filled minnesotans and all-americans. they filled children and others in minnesota. they failed their own state employees. these whistleblowers have told us that the administration retaliated against employees who alerted the administration to the fraud occurring within social services programs. again, governor walz accused employees who were simply doing their jobs of racism, islamophobia, and threatened surveillance to silence them. >> republicans want to attack states with democratic

governors. when it's done in places like minnesota, it has unleashed bigotry and hate. minnesota childcare centers have become the target of harassment. parents are afraid to drop their kids off in the morning and go to work. this is an opportunity to attack for the house majority and smear innocent people without evidence. if we cared about fraud, we would be starting at the very top. dasha: the idea of fraud and even the story has been something other outlets have investigated for months and years. why is this just coming to the forefront now? >> is coming to the forefront because there was a very aggressive video, videographer on the right who went and showed , gave color to what we are already allocating from several years ago. something that crystallized once

again in the social media environment that we are in right now. suddenly people started to focus on the problem because no one was focusing on it from the mainstream media. now you have somebody where people have to focus on the issue. it's a scandal. $9 billion allegedly. fraud of $9 billion in terms of taxpayer money. u.s. federal taxpayer money. this is a very delicate situation but it's a very easy one for a lot of people to understand. they don't want taxpayer money going to people who don't deserve it and having kids heard at the same time hearing it that's why it's been crystallized now. it has come to light through video and the area of online media now. dasha: take a look at this from the new york times. a piece saying, minnesota's fraud should be a take --

wake-up call for democrats. health power, the rise of reagan era conservatism. could the criminal abuse of welfare costs in minnesota be leveraged to similar broad political effect today? the governor stepped aside from the race. democrats have been calling this partisan politics. should there be real concern here? >> they should be concerned that there is fraud going on in childcare. they should be concerned that there is fraud going on anywhere. democrats believe in social programs and it's hard for us to champion them if every year there's a new scandal that comes out. it allows the far right to activate their base around this issue. you just saw, not only did people at dhs and hhs say they were reacting because of next surely, i'm not going to call

him a reporter. they said specifically it was because of him that they reacted . then donald trump pulled back congressionally appropriated funds from five democratic states because he said there might be fraud. there's no evidence of it. he said because of what happened in minnesota, i'm not giving out this money that congress had already appropriated. i think some in the democratic party would argue that's illegal. he's now able to say that because we have this scandal. democrats aren't going to say, yes there was fraud. it puts us in a tough position to champion the social programs going forward. >> i would say, absolutely. on the political and locations of this, if you are talking about issues that are kitchen table issues that are really for the swing voters there, the less the democrats have a focus on

fraud and the more focus on affordability and other things. that's very good. that's why the democrats are looking to scramble for a way to respond to this and turn it back on affordability. that undercuts any argument. dasha: i want to talk about one of the headlines out of the pentagon this week. pete hegseth censured mark kelly over a video where kelly and other democrats called on the military to resist unlawful orders. here's a portion of that video from last year. >> i want to speak directly to the members of the military. >> we know that you are under an arm's pressure right near. americans trust their military. >> this administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against american citizens. >> like us, you all swore an oath. you can refuse illegal orders. >> you must refuse illegal orders.

>> no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution. >> whether you are serving in the cia, army, navy, air force. >> your vigilance is critical. dasha: secretary hegseth announced the department has initiated retirement grade determination proceedings with reduction in his retired grade resulting in corresponding reduction in retired pay. the secretary of war has issued a formal letter of censure. senator kelly was quick to respond. >> let me make it perfectly clear. this letter or anything that pete hegseth says or does to me is in no way going to affect the way i do my job and represent my constituents in the united states senate. ain't happening. so his option right now is, he can continue with this kind of bullshit or he can take a hike. dasha: you worked under

secretary hegseth. what is the strategy here? >> i got along with him very well personally. i think here he's absolutely right. everybody looks at this and says, that's a bogus video. i was a marine officer. when i was a marine officer or anybody in my team, we and they did not need to be told by lawmakers or anybody else that -- the uniform code of military justice. if your commander says shoot this old lady on the street, if you do that you are subject to punishment yourself. nobody is talking about that. this is insinuating that there is some policy here that is illegal. that whole video was not a good thing for the democrats to go out and do. totally disagree with the video. i also disagree with making a big issue of this. by him doing that letter and saying, we will blow this up

into a big thing, i think he should focus on drone warfare. focus on things that are important right now and not get into this tit for tat back-and-forth hearing and frankly for kelly, kelly should charge hegseth for an in-kind contribution to his democrat platform for him running for president. the more that hegseth tries to make this a big deal, the better it is. he has sent out to fundraising letters. he's been on the daily show. this is just politics on both sides. it was a bad call to make that video. it's a bad call to blow this up. dasha: one of my favorite segments. not on my bingo card. we highlight a funny or weird political or cultural moment while addressing house lawmakers at a gop retreat this week. president trump discussed his infamous dancing skills. his dance moves have been a common site over the years

especially at his campaign events. apparently first lady melania isn't a fan. listen. >> she hates when i dance. i said, everybody wants me to dance. darling, it's not presidential. she actually said, can you imagine fdr dancing? she said that to me. [laughter] i said, there's a long history that perhaps she doesn't know. because he was an elegant fellow, ease and -- even as a democrat. the dancing they really like. she said, they don't like it. they are just being nice to you. the place goes crazy. they are screaming, dance! dasha: trump dancing. what do you think? >> absolutely thumbs up. right after he was elected, you remember seeing all those nfl players incorporating the trump dance in the end zone. if it's good for them, it's good

for america. >> i have no objection to his dance move. the song choice is amusing. he might want to listen to the lyrics or some of the songs he dances to. they may not be online with his political views. dasha: he has a very eclectic musical taste i will say. >> ymca. dasha: phantom of the opera. there's a lot going on on the donald trump playlist. >> i would love to see his spotify wrapped at the end of the year. dasha: we will put that request in for you. that's all the time we have. thank you so much. thank you both so much. >> thanks dasha. dasha: let's close the program with our cease fire moment of the week. highlighting politicians coming together. bipartisan tributes poured in this week following the death of longtime republican congressman of california. authorities say he suffered a medical emergency.

on it on the house floor by his former california colleagues. >> yesterday, we learned of the sudden passing of our dear friend and colleague. as a fourth-generation rice farmer, doug's spirit and stray -- shaped his advocacy for his constituents. he first served in the california legislature. then he was elected to the house of representatives in 2012. doug was a good and decent man. authentic public servant. with doug, what you saw is what you got. as the tributes poured in over and over, people remembered his warmth, his wisdom, his sense of humor, kindness, and above all his authenticity. >> we are heartbroken at the news that we have lost doug.

you know, we served with him so proudly and got to know him as a friend. someone who you could disagree with without being disagreeable. we are in shock. i would like to add that our condolences go to the family that you've expressed so well. all of us are heartbroken. it's terrible news. dasha: president trump ordered flags at the white house to be lowered to half staff on tuesday in his honor and expressed sorrow over his death. doug lamalfa was 65 years old. that's all the time we have for this episode. join us next time as i sit down with new jersey democratic congressman josh gottheimer and new york republican congressman mike waller. cease fire is also available as a podcast. find us and all the usual places. i'm dasha burns. remember, whether or not you agree, keep talking and keep listening. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its

ca >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these companies, including comcast. ♪ >> the flag replacement program got started by a good friend of mine who saw a flag at the office that needed to be replaced. he said, this would be great to do for anyone. comcast has always been a community driven company. this is a great example of how we are getting out there. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> watch america's book club

sunday with our guest hall of fame baseball player and best-selling author cal ripken, jr., who has authored and co-authored more than a dozen books including a series of children's books. he joins our host, civic leader, best-selling author, and owner of the baltimore orioles, david rubenstein. >> i thought writing kids books was a good way to broach certain subjects that might have been tough for kids in the backdrop of a travel baseball team. we all worry about things as kids. it was a way to communicate a good message through books. i enjoy the process. >> watch america's book club with cal ripken, jr., sunday only on c-span. ." joining us this morning is francisco monaldi, rice

university baker institute and the latin american energy program director. talk to us about venezuela. mr. monaldi, thank you so much for joining us this morning. francisco: thank you for inviting me. host: the president met with oil executives at the white house yesterday. can you talk us through what the president and the administration's message is to oil companies about the oil in venezuela and what stuck out to you about that meeting? francisco: i mean, of course, the president wants american companies, although he also invited some european companies, to invest in venezuela and recovered the venezuelan oil industry, which is in very bad shape right now. and so, he invited a variety of oil executives from companies that can invest in recovering the venezuelan oil industry.